The Can­to­nal Coun­cil of the Can­ton of Zurich pas­sed the total revi­si­on of the IDG (the law on infor­ma­ti­on and data pro­tec­tion) on March 23, 2026 by 153 votes to 24:

We have the cur­rent ver­si­on in each case with the excerp­ts from the Govern­ment Council’s pro­po­sal compiled.

The ful­ly revi­sed law is not yet in force and the date of ent­ry into force has not yet been set; the imple­men­ting ordi­nan­ce (IDV) must first be drawn up. A date in mid-2027 is likely, until then the fol­lo­wing will app­ly today’s IDG and the IDV.

Back­ground

The Can­ton of Zurich’s IDG dates back to 2007 and regu­la­tes both data pro­tec­tion and the prin­ci­ple of public access. In 2020, the can­to­nal govern­ment initia­ted a com­ple­te revi­si­on based on an eva­lua­ti­on (2013−2017), par­lia­men­ta­ry initia­ti­ves, Euro­pean legal requi­re­ments (Coun­cil of Euro­pe Con­ven­ti­on 108+, Schen­gen) and the com­ple­te revi­si­on of the fede­ral FADP. A par­ti­al revi­si­on had alre­a­dy imple­men­ted the mini­mum requi­re­ments under Euro­pean law in 2019.

The con­sul­ta­ti­on pro­cess began on June 28, 2022, and on July 5, 2023, the Govern­ment Coun­cil adopted bill 5923. The big­gest point of con­ten­ti­on was a pas­sa­ge pro­po­sed by the Govern­ment Coun­cil, accor­ding to which minu­tes of non-public mee­tings, inclu­ding moti­ons, co-reports and state­ments by the exe­cu­ti­ve, should gene­ral­ly remain under lock and key. The sub­se­quent deba­te amen­ded this point at the request of the Com­mit­tee for Sta­te and Muni­ci­pal Affairs (STGK).

The Can­to­nal Coun­cil dis­cus­sed the bill in seve­ral mee­tings (Sep­tem­ber 15 and Novem­ber 24, 2025).

Signi­fi­cant innovations

  • Repre­sen­ta­ti­ve for the prin­ci­ple of publi­ci­ty and data pro­tec­tion: The exi­sting DPO will have a dual func­tion: it will now also advi­se aut­ho­ri­ties and muni­ci­pa­li­ties on the prin­ci­ple of public access and can con­duct arbi­tra­ti­on pro­ce­e­dings in the event of dis­pu­tes regar­ding access to infor­ma­ti­on. The public body is obli­ged to participate.
  • Excep­ti­ons to access to infor­ma­ti­onAccess to infor­ma­ti­on: In the case of govern­ment coun­cil and muni­ci­pal coun­cil busi­ness, appli­ca­ti­ons, co-reports, state­ments and minu­tes are exclu­ded from access to infor­ma­ti­on. Muni­ci­pa­li­ties may rest­rict the­se excep­ti­ons or decla­re them inapplicable.
  • Open Govern­ment Data: Open govern­ment data is infor­ma­ti­on that a public body makes free­ly acce­s­si­ble in machi­ne-rea­da­ble form and that can be used wit­hout rest­ric­tion. Public bodies may publish such data; the cen­tral admi­ni­stra­ti­on must, pro­vi­ded that the­re is no law or over­ri­ding public or pri­va­te inte­rests to the contrary.
  • AI regi­sterEvery public body must keep a publicly acce­s­si­ble list of the algo­rith­mic decis­i­on-making systems it uses, inso­far as the­se can have an impact on fun­da­men­tal rights – the thres­hold is deli­bera­te­ly set low, the pos­si­bi­li­ty of a vio­la­ti­on of fun­da­men­tal rights is suf­fi­ci­ent. The term „algo­rith­mic decis­i­on-making systems“ deli­bera­te­ly covers both rule-based and machi­ne lear­ning systems. The mini­mum spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons are to be regu­la­ted by the Govern­ment Coun­cil in the ordinance.
  • Noti­fi­ca­ti­on obli­ga­ti­on for AI-sup­port­ed pro­ce­s­sing: When obtai­ning per­so­nal data, the public body must actively inform about the pos­si­ble use of algo­rith­mic decis­i­on-making systems, and when reque­st­ing infor­ma­ti­on, the data sub­jects must be infor­med if their data has been pro­ce­s­sed using AI.
  • Assess­ment of the con­se­quen­ces of fun­da­men­tal rights: Every time algo­rith­mic systems are used, a fun­da­men­tal rights impact assess­ment (GRFA) must be car­ri­ed out to iden­ti­fy and redu­ce fun­da­men­tal rights risks. The RIA may be added to the DPIA (but can also be taken together).
  • Pilot testsPublic bodies may pro­cess spe­cial per­so­nal data as part of pilot tests wit­hout a for­mal legal basis, with the appr­oval of the can­to­nal govern­ment (in the case of muni­ci­pa­li­ties, the muni­ci­pal coun­cil) and for a maxi­mum of five years.
  • Con­sent: Public bodies may pro­cess data if the data sub­ject cons­ents, ana­log­ous to Art. 34 FADP. Expli­cit con­sent is requi­red for spe­cial per­so­nal data.
  • Pro­fil­ing: Pro­fil­ing (defi­ned as the auto­ma­ted eva­lua­ti­on of infor­ma­ti­on to ana­ly­ze key per­so­nal cha­rac­te­ri­stics or pre­dict per­so­nal deve­lo­p­ments) now requi­res a basis in a for­mal law.
  • Pro­por­tio­na­li­ty: This prin­ci­ple is now regu­la­ted in a sepa­ra­te paragraph.
  • Infor­ma­ti­on pro­ce­s­sing by third par­tiesOrder pro­ce­s­sing is being tigh­ten­ed up some­what due to incre­a­sing out­sour­cing to the cloud.